Let us say one person attacks another. The victim, for whatever reasons (presumably because they are unable to defend themselves) has made a contractual agreement with another person to come to their aid and defense. This other person attacks the initial aggressor on behalf of the victim. Is this or is this not acceptable in your ideology? Explain.

Does your answer differ if the attack was not on the physical person but their property rights? Does it differ if the contract is with a larger group, instead of a person? What about if the contact was not explicitly written (and the victim unable, perhaps because of death, coma, loss of speaking ability, age, etc, due to the attack), but instead implicit (I'm of course drawing on J. Kenyon's point about implicit/explicit contracts) based on relationship? If your answer changes in any of these cases, please explain.

If proving the offense is a matter of concern to you, who decides what is proof? How much proof is needed for the victim to retaliate against their attacker? Is insanity, mistaken identity, lying, or false memory a concern? If one person attacks another and justifies it by lying and saying the victim attacked them, what then?

I certainly don't expect libertarianism/etc to be perfectly applicable in all cases--nothing is. But I feel these are valid concerns about some of the views expressed by some of the libertarians/ancaps in a recent thread. (Especially the one who expressed the opinion that the ideology is 100% perfect). So I am curious what shoddy explanations the less mentally stable ones can come up with, I'm also curious how the perfectly respectable and sane ones deal with these problems.

In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands

Let us say one person attacks another. The victim, for whatever reasons (presumably because they are unable to defend themselves) has made a contractual agreement with another person to come to their aid and defense. This other person attacks the initial aggressor on behalf of the victim. Is this or is this not acceptable in your ideology? Explain.

It is. Retaliation against aggression isn't limited to only the victim. If you're a criminal, you lose rights in general, not just your right to not be attacked by the specific person you're attacking.

Does your answer differ if the attack was not on the physical person but their property rights?

No.

Does it differ if the contract is with a larger group, instead of a person?

No.

What about if the contact was not explicitly written (and the victim unable, perhaps because of death, coma, loss of speaking ability, age, etc, due to the attack), but instead implicit (I'm of course drawing on J. Kenyon's point about implicit/explicit contracts) based on relationship?

No.

If your answer changes in any of these cases, please explain.

If proving the offense is a matter of concern to you, who decides what is proof?

I don't know. Probably a court or something, unless the defender actually witnesses the initial aggression and comes to the victim's defense. Libertarianism deals with matters of rights--people guilty of crimes lose them, people innocent of crimes don't. All libertarianism says is that it is OK to punish criminals, and not OK to punish non-criminals. Determining which people are in which group is a separate matter.

How much proof is needed for the victim to retaliate against their attacker? Is insanity, mistaken identity, lying, or false memory a concern? If one person attacks another and justifies it by lying and saying the victim attacked them, what then?

Same as above.

I certainly don't expect libertarianism/etc to be perfectly applicable in all cases--nothing is. But I feel these are valid concerns about some of the views expressed by some of the libertarians/ancaps in a recent thread. (Especially the one who expressed the opinion that the ideology is 100% perfect). So I am curious what shoddy explanations the less mentally stable ones can come up with, I'm also curious how the perfectly respectable and sane ones deal with these problems.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

Okaydokey. Keep in mind that I have a far different view of Libertarianism than most.

Let us say one person attacks another.

At this point the scenario has already become unlibertarian.

The victim, for whatever reasons (presumably because they are unable to defend themselves) has made a contractual agreement with another person to come to their aid and defense. This other person attacks the initial aggressor on behalf of the victim. Is this or is this not acceptable in your ideology? Explain.

It is not. In my "ideology" all acts of violence are unnecessary and if violence has been initiated in the first place then there has been a failure in the system. My "ideology" relies on social conditioning in which societal norms are established that do not produce violent offenders.

Does your answer differ if the attack was not on the physical person but their property rights?

Yes, it does. I do not believe in property rights. However, I also do not believe in senseless destruction.

Does it differ if the contract is with a larger group, instead of a person?

No.

What about if the contact was not explicitly written (and the victim unable, perhaps because of death, coma, loss of speaking ability, age, etc, due to the attack), but instead implicit (I'm of course drawing on J. Kenyon's point about implicit/explicit contracts) based on relationship? If your answer changes in any of these cases, please explain.

It does not.

If proving the offense is a matter of concern to you, who decides what is proof? How much proof is needed for the victim to retaliate against their attacker? Is insanity, mistaken identity, lying, or false memory a concern? If one person attacks another and justifies it by lying and saying the victim attacked them, what then?

Nothing to say here.

I certainly don't expect libertarianism/etc to be perfectly applicable in all cases--nothing is. But I feel these are valid concerns about some of the views expressed by some of the libertarians/ancaps in a recent thread.

They certainly are.

(Especially the one who expressed the opinion that the ideology is 100% perfect). So I am curious what shoddy explanations the less mentally stable ones can come up with, I'm also curious how the perfectly respectable and sane ones deal with these problems.

Looking back at your post, I realize that you may have wanted to know how a court or arbitration process would actually work in a libertarian criminal justice system. There are explanations of this, but it's a complicated issue and I don't want to write it all out. If you're willing to read articles other people have written on the subject, I can find some links of those for you.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

At 2/1/2011 12:34:48 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:It is. Retaliation against aggression isn't limited to only the victim. If you're a criminal, you lose rights in general, not just your right to not be attacked by the specific person you're attacking.

To what extent do they lose rights and why?

For instance, I'm sure you wouldn't think it would be alright to torture someone for stealing a pen.

At 2/1/2011 12:34:48 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:It is. Retaliation against aggression isn't limited to only the victim. If you're a criminal, you lose rights in general, not just your right to not be attacked by the specific person you're attacking.

To what extent do they lose rights and why?

For instance, I'm sure you wouldn't think it would be alright to torture someone for stealing a pen.

inb4 Ragnar.

You lose your rights to the extent that you violate another person's. If I steal $1000, I have to pay my victim back $2000 (the initial $1000 back, plus the $1000 I lost my rights to by being a thief).

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

At 2/1/2011 12:34:48 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:It is. Retaliation against aggression isn't limited to only the victim. If you're a criminal, you lose rights in general, not just your right to not be attacked by the specific person you're attacking.

To what extent do they lose rights and why?

For instance, I'm sure you wouldn't think it would be alright to torture someone for stealing a pen.

inb4 Ragnar.

Looool

You lose your rights to the extent that you violate another person's. If I steal $1000, I have to pay my victim back $2000 (the initial $1000 back, plus the $1000 I lost my rights to by being a thief).

At 2/1/2011 12:34:48 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:It is. Retaliation against aggression isn't limited to only the victim. If you're a criminal, you lose rights in general, not just your right to not be attacked by the specific person you're attacking.

To what extent do they lose rights and why?

For instance, I'm sure you wouldn't think it would be alright to torture someone for stealing a pen.

inb4 Ragnar.

Looool

You lose your rights to the extent that you violate another person's. If I steal $1000, I have to pay my victim back $2000 (the initial $1000 back, plus the $1000 I lost my rights to by being a thief).

I see. Do you believe in jail?

Only when absolutely necessary. Most crimes should just be worked off until the victim receives their restitution.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

At 2/1/2011 12:45:08 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:Only when absolutely necessary. Most crimes should just be worked off until the victim receives their restitution.

How is the just amount of jail or work time measured?

By the amount of harm to the victim. Of course, some things like assault or rape can't be measured in money, so there can't be a perfectly proportionate punishment. The job of the legal system would just to to get as close to justice as they can.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

At 2/1/2011 12:45:08 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:Only when absolutely necessary. Most crimes should just be worked off until the victim receives their restitution.

How is the just amount of jail or work time measured?

In my ideal prison system, inmates would perform hard labor until the crime is paid off. Some crimes you can't really compensate the victim for (rape, murder). I think both ought to carry a life sentence and in the latter case, you would be obligated to the victim's family.

Some people can't be held morally accountable due to mental illness. They wouldn't be entitled to treatment, but they might expect to live under more humane circumstances. If someone else was willing to pay to have them treated (friends, family, charity), that would be permissible.

Let us say one person attacks another. The victim, for whatever reasons (presumably because they are unable to defend themselves) has made a contractual agreement with another person to come to their aid and defense. This other person attacks the initial aggressor on behalf of the victim.

Are you talking "attacks" during the course of the act or "attacks" after the attack is well and done with? I.e., retaliation or defense? Both are acceptable in a null state of nature, but retaliatory jurisdiction is a scarce resource and has to be monopolized, i.e., has to be made a property, so that within a given area there becomes only one acceptable outlet for such contracts. (an anarcho capitalist would disagree, and this is the fundamental difference between a minarchist, including Objectivists, and an anarcho capitalist.

By contrast, a contract for defense during the act (security guards), having no need nor ability for evidential procedures and other quiet reflection in the face of the upraised knife, allows for competitive providers.

Does your answer differ if the attack was not on the physical person but their property rights?

No.

What about if the contact was not explicitly written (and the victim unable, perhaps because of death, coma, loss of speaking ability, age, etc, due to the attack), but instead implicit (I'm of course drawing on J. Kenyon's point about implicit/explicit contracts) based on relationship?

One does not require "consent" to be defended, just as one does not require "consent" to be saved from drowning. Unless, of course, one is making it clear to all involved one intends to go without help. Good samaritanship should not be punished if it can be helped. However, this party has no right to take property from a third party in order to defend the victim, so this party had best be prepared to bear the costs personally if they do not have an explicit offer of payment from the one they are saving.

Does it differ if the contract is with a larger group, instead of a person?

Not in principle. However, an independent professional is unlikely to be able to enforce jurisdiction at any given time, and will naturally abandon it to nature when they fail to do so, where a larger group will take over. If, however, Superman comes along, it is perfectly acceptable for him to start providing these services (under the same condition as everyone else, no one else is providing them).

If proving the offense is a matter of concern to you, who decides what is proof?

In retaliatory force, i.e. outside the range of the upraised knife, proof is indeed important, and decided upon by the holder of the jurisdiction (the government). Obviously, if it is clearly being provided unjustly, a revolt is justified.

How much proof is needed for the victim to retaliate against their attacker?

That's a rather arbitrary point. Revolt if it's clearly insufficent. Otherwise don't. It's hard to draw a line in this particular matter. I think the present court system, at least for criminal law, is quite acceptable on that point, except of course for the conscription of labor, and nonprofessional labor at that, as triers of fact-- my disagreements with the present government are mostly a matter of what the laws are.

Is insanity, mistaken identity, lying, or false memory a concern

Insanity is not. The other two are very large concerns and valid defenses. Indeed, I am very very suspicious of "memory" as evidence. Circumstantial evidence holds far more weight in my mind than witnesses.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 2/1/2011 12:25:47 AM, Yvette wrote:Let us say one person attacks another. The victim, for whatever reasons (presumably because they are unable to defend themselves) has made a contractual agreement with another person to come to their aid and defense. This other person attacks the initial aggressor on behalf of the victim. Is this or is this not acceptable in your ideology? Explain.

There is no problem with having another come to your aid when you are assaulted.

Does your answer differ if the attack was not on the physical person but their property rights?

It would depend on the value of the injured item.

Does it differ if the contract is with a larger group, instead of a person?

No.

What about if the contact was not explicitly written (and the victim unable, perhaps because of death, coma, loss of speaking ability, age, etc, due to the attack), but instead implicit (I'm of course drawing on J. Kenyon's point about implicit/explicit contracts) based on relationship? If your answer changes in any of these cases, please explain.

There doesn't even need to be a contract. If someone is being mugged, I have no problem with you using necessary force to disable the mugger.

If proving the offense is a matter of concern to you, who decides what is proof?

Each individual. Though society at large would most likely prefer a court hearing of some sort.

How much proof is needed for the victim to retaliate against their attacker?

Presumably, if you're being attacked, you are pretty damn sure that you're being attacked.

Is insanity, mistaken identity, lying, or false memory a concern?

Sure.

If one person attacks another and justifies it by lying and saying the victim attacked them, what then?

What happens now?

"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran

Okaydokey. Keep in mind that I have a far different view of Libertarianism than most.

Let us say one person attacks another.

At this point the scenario has already become unlibertarian.

The victim, for whatever reasons (presumably because they are unable to defend themselves) has made a contractual agreement with another person to come to their aid and defense. This other person attacks the initial aggressor on behalf of the victim. Is this or is this not acceptable in your ideology? Explain.

It is not. In my "ideology" all acts of violence are unnecessary and if violence has been initiated in the first place then there has been a failure in the system. My "ideology" relies on social conditioning in which societal norms are established that do not produce violent offenders.

Please explain your proof that violence is not part of human nature, or more specifically, please provide any proof that violence is only a result of societal norms. Indeed, I'm curious what your explanation is for animalistic instincts suddenly disappearing--are there many examples in evolution of features, especially mental features, disappearing completely instead of simply being modified or built upon?

If your ideology--really, any ideology--proves imperfect, what then? An hero?

In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands

At 2/1/2011 1:21:54 AM, Yvette wrote:Please explain your proof that violence is not part of human nature, or more specifically, please provide any proof that violence is only a result of societal norms. Indeed, I'm curious what your explanation is for animalistic instincts suddenly disappearing--are there many examples in evolution of features, especially mental features, disappearing completely instead of simply being modified or built upon?

Are not the laboring classes deprived of their earnings by usury in its three forms,—interest, rent, and profit?

Is not such deprivation the principal cause of poverty?

Is not poverty, directly or indirectly, the principal cause of illegal crime?

Is not usury dependent upon monopoly, and especially upon the land and money monopolies?

Could these monopolies exist without the State at their back?

Does not by far the larger part of the work of the State consist in establishing and sustaining these monopolies and other results of special legislation?

Would not the abolition of these invasive functions of the State lead gradually to the disappearance of crime?

If so, would not the disappearance of crime render the protective functions of the State superfluous?

In that case, would not the State have been entirely abolished?

If your ideology--really, any ideology--proves imperfect, what then? An hero?

What is two plus two was not four? An Hero?

"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran

At 2/1/2011 1:21:54 AM, Yvette wrote:Please explain your proof that violence is not part of human nature,

I will not do that. It turns out, I think violence IS a part of human nature.

or more specifically, please provide any proof that violence is only a result of societal norms.

I do not think it is. There are many factors. However, I do think societal norms have the the ability to over-power those other factors.

Indeed, I'm curious what your explanation is for animalistic instincts suddenly disappearing--are there many examples in evolution of features, especially mental features, disappearing completely instead of simply being modified or built upon?

Have I claimed this? Don't worry, this is usual. At every turn I become misinterpreted.

If your ideology--really, any ideology--proves imperfect, what then? An hero?

I sure hope with all my strength that it is imperfect. If a society is perfect then there is no room to grow and thus all meaning to life has been sucked away. It is critical that the struggle for perfection continue but that it never be reached.

At 2/1/2011 1:21:54 AM, Yvette wrote:Please explain your proof that violence is not part of human nature, or more specifically, please provide any proof that violence is only a result of societal norms. Indeed, I'm curious what your explanation is for animalistic instincts suddenly disappearing--are there many examples in evolution of features, especially mental features, disappearing completely instead of simply being modified or built upon?

Are not the laboring classes deprived of their earnings by usury in its three forms,—interest, rent, and profit?

Is not such deprivation the principal cause of poverty?

Is not poverty, directly or indirectly, the principal cause of illegal crime?

Is not usury dependent upon monopoly, and especially upon the land and money monopolies?

Could these monopolies exist without the State at their back?

Does not by far the larger part of the work of the State consist in establishing and sustaining these monopolies and other results of special legislation?

Would not the abolition of these invasive functions of the State lead gradually to the disappearance of crime?

If so, would not the disappearance of crime render the protective functions of the State superfluous?

In that case, would not the State have been entirely abolished?

If your ideology--really, any ideology--proves imperfect, what then? An hero?

What is two plus two was not four? An Hero?

Please bother to read. My challenge was that FREEDO stated that his ideology would magically get rid of ALL violence. Poverty, and the causes of it, do indeed contribute to causing violence. No argument there. But that was not what I was challenging--my challenge is the erroneous belief that FREEDO's ideology would magically do away with violence and that violence is ONLY rooted in societal norms.

In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands

So, what specific societal norms do you propose that could overwrite human nature, to the point of reducing violence to zero? By all means, conduct a study showing us it works.

Is it true or not that some people exist who do not use violence and willfully care for their fellow beings? Then I assert that it is true that human society may exist devoid of violence and where all care for one another.

Some may say to this that I am assuming all humans are the same. Actually, I am doing the exact opposite. I am assuming that the those who are caring are very much different but that a certain environment was necessary for this.

Some may then reply "But sometimes it's just genetic". I think this is fundamentally a cop-out, one that says "forget about it, it is simply a problem that cannot be solved". But if they actually knew genetics they would know there is no such thing as predestination in personality, there is only predisposition. All our genetics do is give us a frame to fit the picture which will come to develop. Everyone has certain dispositions, this does not mean they must lead to a certain conclusion.

So, what specific societal norms do you propose that could overwrite human nature, to the point of reducing violence to zero? By all means, conduct a study showing us it works.

Is it true or not that some people exist who do not use violence and willfully care for their fellow beings? Then I assert that it is true that human society may exist devoid of violence and where all care for one another.

Is it true that some people get hit by lightning? Is it true that some people win the lottery? Is it true that some people get eaten alive by sharks? Then I assert that one day, I may be struck by lighting as I'm eaten by shark. At that very moment, PowerBall will announce that I've just won the $150 million jackpot.

Possible =/= probable

I want to put people everyone in a Skinner box so I can turn them into perfect little mindless automatons.

So, what specific societal norms do you propose that could overwrite human nature, to the point of reducing violence to zero? By all means, conduct a study showing us it works.

Is it true or not that some people exist who do not use violence and willfully care for their fellow beings? Then I assert that it is true that human society may exist devoid of violence and where all care for one another.

Is it true that some people get hit by lightning? Is it true that some people win the lottery? Is it true that some people get eaten alive by sharks? Then I assert that one day, I may be struck by lighting as I'm eaten by shark. At that very moment, PowerBall will announce that I've just won the $150 million jackpot.

Possible =/= probable

Irrelevant. You are leaving a big thing out of the question. Desirability. If people wanted to be eaten by sharks you would probably see a lot more of it. Also, it's an ad hominem; the ideal state of things being improbable doesn't make it less ideal. I would be very skeptical of the person who claimed that the ideal is NOT improbable!

I want to put people everyone in a Skinner box so I can turn them into perfect little mindless automatons.

Yikes, that sounds like something straight out of The Republic.

That is not what I promote. A reoccurring theme in criticizations towards me, exactly the opposite; eliminating indoctrinating factors would be ideal.